Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California
September 24, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogStairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so.
A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station.
Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed.
The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].)
The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256.
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results
October 21, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Louisiana court recently denied an excess insurer’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the insurer’s interpretation of a pollution exclusion would lead to “absurd results.”
Central Crude, Inc., a crude oil transporter company, experienced an oil pipeline leak, allegedly causing damage to property belonging to Columbia Gas Transmission Company. Columbia Gas sued Central Crude seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to compel remediation of the site. Central Crude sought coverage under a CGL primary insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. The insurer initially agreed to cover Central Crude’s “reasonable and necessary costs” relating to the incident, but later refused to defend or indemnify Central Crude for any costs incurred from the incident. As a result, Central Crude brought suit against Liberty Mutual and its excess insurer, Great American, to enforce coverage.
Great American moved for summary judgment arguing coverage was excluded by the excess policy’s pollution exclusion, which precludes coverage for injury “arising out of a discharge of pollutants.” Central Crude responded arguing that the exclusion’s applicability was invalidated or at least rendered ambiguous by the Following Form Endorsements, which reflect an intent to mirror the coverage afforded under the primary Liberty Mutual policy, and because coverage appears to be specifically authorized through the Premises Operations Liability Endorsement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Weslaco, Texas Investigating Possible Fraudulent Contractor Invoices
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe city of Weslaco in Texas fears that they have received “fraudulent invoices from the contractor of the…Valley Nature Center facility,” according to the Mid-Valley Town Crier. The project had been stalled due to “problems with numerous subcontractors claiming they hadn’t received payment.” Furthermore, “[c]onstruction is more than 14 months delayed and now halted as contractor GAS Enterprises demands more money from the city.”
City Manager Leo Olivares informed GAS President Rene Salinas “that the city was aware of ‘forged requests for payments,’ ‘padding invoices’ and ‘requests for reimbursement for items, materials and labor that you did not pay,’” reported the Mid-Valley Town Crier. While Salinas did not respond to the Mid-Valley Town Crier when asked for a comment, he did send a letter to the city “arguing that none of the subcontractors had questioned the documents to him.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Construction in Arizona Back to Normal?
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogThe Phoenix Metro area is finally pulling out of the Great Recession of 2008. Potential homebuyers are frantically looking to buy a home before interest rates rise and prices continue their ascent to normalcy. For the last several months, residential construction builders have continued to buy more land around the Valley of the Sun for new subdivisions, especially in North Phoenix and the East Valley. In fact, from January through May of 2013, in the Phoenix Metro area alone, 86 new communities have come to fruition—more than all of 2012. Nationally, single-family housing starts reached 667,000 in December 2013 according to the National Association of Home Builders tracking of single-family home starts, which is comparable to 1985 levels.
It has been well documented that since the conclusion of World War II, Arizona’s population growth fostered new home construction at a rapid, almost unmatched pace. At the 2006 construction peak, Arizona’s residential construction output climbed to 64,000, more than double the average 20,000 to 30,000 new homes that are typically constructed annually. Building rates have not come close to the 2006 numbers, but new home starts increased 70 percent since 2012.
So after six years after the real estate bubble popped, is the construction industry in Arizona finally back to normal? It depends on your definition of “normal.”
In 2009, foreclosures reached alarming proportions. However, in 2010, the engine of Arizona’s population growth, the Phoenix Metro area, began to grow again. Since 2010, Maricopa County had added 125,000 residents. There is strong demand for new housing, and appreciating housing prices has let the construction industry get back on its feet. In residential construction, supply is tight, and all cash offers are common. We all know that Wall Street played a huge role in creating the housing bubble, and eventual bust, by facilitating the use of risky, sub-prime mortgages and turning them into securities that were sold to investors, pension-funds, and the like.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor Sues License Board
June 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFJudge Kendall J. Newman of the US District Court handed down a decision on June 24 on the case of Kent v California Department of Consumer Affairs. Mr. Kent, appearing as his own counsel, had brought the suit against the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Contractors State Licensing Board after he was arrested in a sting operation and, as the plaintiff put it, “was absurdly arrested and uncooperatively detained for a time longer than necessary or allowed by law under the false pretense of contracting with out a license.” Mr. Kent’s alleged that Rick Lopez, one of the defendants, formed him to read allow from the California Business and Professions Code. He said he was later handcuffed and placed in an uncomfortable chair, “enduring physical pain and emotional agony.”
Although Kent was given a Notice to Appear, he alleged that a further defendant, Stuart Rind, “closed the plaintiff’s case marked citation A7773 without giving written notice to anyone.” As a result, the Placer County District Attorney’s Office had no record of his Notice to Appear.
Kent alleged that subsequently his firm was essentially shut down for two years and that he was prevented from “legally contracting or selling services for any other contractor or qualifying for any other licensed capacity governed by the CSLB.” After this, the CSLB suspended the license for his firm, DSI Construction. He was assessed a $1,500 fine, after which he claims he sent a letter to the CSLB demanding money damages. The judge noted that the letter was not included in the plaintiff’s Ninth Amended Complaint.
Judge Kendall recommended that the plaintiff’s Complaints be dismissed, although he did allow that sixth, and perhaps the eighth and ninth, could be amended with a tenth amended complaint.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process
May 30, 2018 —
Daniel Garcia - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogIn Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, No. SC16-1420, 2017 WL 6379535 (Fla. Dec. 14, 2017), the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the notice and repair process set forth in chapter 558, Florida Statutes, constitutes a “suit” within the meaning of a commercial liability policy issued by Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“C&F”) to Altman Contractors, Inc. (“Altman”). The Court found that because the chapter 558 pre-suit process is an “alternative dispute resolution proceeding” as included in the definition of “suit” in the policy by C&F to Altman, C&F had a duty to defend Altman during the chapter 558 process, prior to the filing of a formal lawsuit.
Chapter 558, titled “Construction Defects,” sets forth procedural requirements before a claimant may file a construction defect action. It requires a claimant to serve a written notice of claim on the applicable contractor, subcontractor, supplier, and/or design professional prior to filing a construction defect lawsuit. The legislature intended for Chapter 558 to be an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in certain construction defect matters allowing an opportunity to resolve the claim without further legal process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Garcia, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Garcia may be contacted at
daniel.garcia@grsm.com
Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area
December 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere was a slowing in the third quarter, but home builders expect that 2013 will see more than 9,000 home starts in the San Antonio area. And even though the third quarter was slow, it was still about 3% above the same quarter in 2012.
And the new homes are more expensive. Jack Inselmann, a senior vice president at MetroStudy noted that “in 2011, 40 percent of housing activity was under $175,000. And here we are two years later and 31 percent is under $175,000.” He worries that people looking for homes will go to the resale market, instead of buying a new home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it)
August 10, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsVirginia mechanic’s liens are a powerful and tricky beast that in most cases require absolute precision in their preparation. However, an interesting opinion recently came out of the Virginia Supreme Court that may provide a bit of a “safe harbor” from the total form over function nature of a mechanic’s lien.
In Desai, Executrix v. A.R. Design Group Inc., the Court considered a lien memorandum that had what could be described as technical flaws in the preparation of the mechanic’s lien by A. R. Design Group. The basic facts are that A. R. Design Group used the form of lien found in Va. Code Sec. 43-5 (also found as Form CC-1512 at the Virginia Judiciary website) when it recorded two lien memoranda for two pieces of property owned by a trust. Relating to one of the two properties, the memorandum failed to identify the “Owner” as the trustee of the trust. On the memoranda relating to both properties the affidavit verifying the amounts claimed did not identify the signatory as agent for A. R. Design Group, instead listing the agent as the claimant and further failed to state a date from which interest is claimed or a date on which the debt was due.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
